Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Scot Dutchy]

Putin knows who he is backing; a buffoon that will give him what he wants.

[Animavore]

Well of course he wants warm ties with Russia. It's within his oil interests.

[rainbow]

Well of course he wants warm ties with Russia. It's within his oil interests.

Plus it will supply the next set of wives.

[Scot Dutchy]

Another load of porn stars?

[laklak]

Y'all just jealous.

[L'Emmerdeur]

"Trump accepts U.S. intelligence on Russia hacking, top aide says"

Of course, Trump has shown form for contradicting what "top aides" say about his beliefs and policies, so until we hear it from the horse's arse . . .

[Jason]

Śiva chose to hurl childish insults rather than attempt to critically examine the evidence that is available.

Actually, I did respond to the so-called evidence contained in one of your links. You just prefer to engage in disingenuous "naming and shaming" tactics. Probably because you're used to places like Ratskep where the common tactics involve destroying a person's reputation rather than engaging in rational argument - that would involve things like satisfying the burden of proof for one's claims not just throwing links at your interlocutor. To reiterate what I said back then: I looked at your links, didn't find anything that qualifies as evidence, then (quite reasonably) asked you to point out where this evidence, you claimed existed, was to be found.

[Jason]

Trump 'accepts' findings that Russia tried to meddle in U.S. election, incoming chief of staff says

U.S. president-elect Donald Trump accepts the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that Russia tried to interfere in the presidential election, his incoming White House chief of staff said Sunday.

"I think he accepts the findings," Reince Priebus said on Fox News Sunday. "He's not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular campaign."

Intelligence officials allege that Moscow directed a series of hacks in order to help Trump win the White House. Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism about Russia's role and has declined to say whether he accepts the meddling was done on his behalf. In December, he called the claims "ridiculous."

On Friday, U.S. intelligence briefed the president-elect on their conclusions that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win the White House. Priebus attended along with Trump.

In an interview with The Associated Press after the briefing, Trump said he "learned a lot" from his discussions with intelligence officials, but he declined to say whether he accepted their assertion about Russia's motives.

An unclassified version of the report directly tied Russian President Vladimir Putin to election meddling and said that Moscow had a "clear preference" for Trump in his race against Hillary Clinton.

The report did not find evidence of vote machine tampering and did not make conclusions about Russia's effect on the election outcome.

Trump and his allies have bristled at any implication that the meddling helped him win the election. He won the Electoral College vote with 306 votes, topping the 270 votes required to become president.

On Friday, Trump tried to change the subject to allegations that hadn't been raised by U.S. intelligence. "Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results. Voting machines not touched!" he tweeted.

He then declared in a series of tweets on Saturday that having a good relationship with Russia is "a good thing, not a bad thing." Trump added, "only 'stupid' people or fools" would come to a different conclusion.

'It could be Iran next time'

Accepting the intelligence report's findings would be a positive step — but not enough, said one leading Senate Republican who is calling for more sanctions against Russia.

"He's going to be the defender of the free world here pretty soon," Senator Lindsey Graham, a frequent Trump critic, said in remarks broadcast Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. "All I'm asking him is to acknowledge that Russia interfered, and push back. It could be Iran next time. It could be China."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-acce ... -1.3926662

[Collector1337]

Thanks, Putin!

[Brian Peacock]

So, if this is actually the case does it make Wikileaks the unwitting pawn of the Kremlin, or at least make it complicit in undermining democratic processes?

[Brian Peacock]

Beware! Thread merge ahead!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Śiva chose to hurl childish insults rather than attempt to critically examine the evidence that is available.

Actually, I did respond to the so-called evidence contained in one of your links. You just prefer to engage in disingenuous "naming and shaming" tactics. Probably because you're used to places like Ratskep where the common tactics involve destroying a person's reputation rather than engaging in rational argument - that would involve things like satisfying the burden of proof for one's claims not just throwing links at your interlocutor. To reiterate what I said back then: I looked at your links, didn't find anything that qualifies as evidence, then (quite reasonably) asked you to point out where this evidence, you claimed existed, was to be found.

Cyber-security professionals posted the evidence. They know a lot better than you (who "glanced" at the links I provided) what constitutes evidence. If you had actually read what was at the links I hope that you'd have a more cogent rebuttal than simple "Nuh UH, there's NO EVIDENCE there!!!" You didn't offer any tangible criticism other than bald denial of the existence of evidence, and I'm not here to force it on you.

[Galaxian]

Śiva chose to hurl childish insults rather than attempt to critically examine the evidence that is available.

Actually, I did respond to the so-called evidence contained in one of your links. You just prefer to engage in disingenuous "naming and shaming" tactics. Probably because you're used to places like Ratskep where the common tactics involve destroying a person's reputation rather than engaging in rational argument - that would involve things like satisfying the burden of proof for one's claims not just throwing links at your interlocutor. To reiterate what I said back then: I looked at your links, didn't find anything that qualifies as evidence, then (quite reasonably) asked you to point out where this evidence, you claimed existed, was to be found.

Cyber-security professionals posted the evidence. They know a lot better than you (who "glanced" at the links I provided) what constitutes evidence. If you had actually read what was at the links I hope that you'd have a more cogent rebuttal than simple "Nuh UH, there's NO EVIDENCE there!!!" You didn't offer any tangible criticism other than bald denial of the existence of evidence, and I'm not here to force it on you.

That's the problem with forums. Anyone, of any level of intelligence, of any paltry amount of knowledge, suffering from amnesia, of any degree of gullibility, naivety, and mischievous intention can come here & flaunt their stuff.

You can debate. So can I. Yeah, free for all. So we get here the jackass comment: "Cyber-security professionals posted the evidence. They know a lot better than you (who "glanced" at the links I provided) what constitutes evidence". Here we have the ultimate technocrat... the "professionals" know better! Sure they do baba, sure they do. And they are your chums, your buddies, your good mates. They LOVE you baba, they love you. All praise be to the honest & divine "Cyber-security professionals", such as Clapper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vFOax-Zzc


I'll assume that Monsieur L'Emmerdeur is not a web bot sent out by the CIA for deliberate disinfo, but he is doing a damn good job of imitating one. Here's the professional of professionals. See what he has to say about the HOLLOW & EMPTY bullshit that the venerable lack-of-intelligence agencies have said about Russian hacking:
"Today, the most deceptive propaganda to date was perpetrated on the American public." John MacAfee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jD4SF9gFE


Several sources state categorically that any information came from insider leaks, not foreign hacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4Fmsft3ucM


Quite possibly a major leak was done by Seth Rich. He was shot 4 times in the back, nothing was stolen. Assange offered a reward for anyone who supplies information about his murder, hinting that Seth was the source
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG3usMTDeg

Ultimately, the facts are that the Hillary & Podesta emails had damning, criminal evidence in them!

[Forty Two]

So, if this is actually the case does it make Wikileaks the unwitting pawn of the Kremlin, or at least make it complicit in undermining democratic processes?

How would revealing unethical and shady activity, and providing the voters with more information and insight into the behind the scenes activities of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, "undermine" democracy? Would democracy be better if we did not see what Podesta and Hlllary were up to? Would Democracy be better had we not found out that Donna Brazile gave Town Hall questions to Hillary Clinton in advance?

"Evidentiary value = 0" http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity ... ing-report

[Brian Peacock]

So, if this is actually the case does it make Wikileaks the unwitting pawn of the Kremlin, or at least make it complicit in undermining democratic processes?

How would revealing unethical and shady activity, and providing the voters with more information and insight into the behind the scenes activities of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, "undermine" democracy? Would democracy be better if we did not see what Podesta and Hlllary were up to? Would Democracy be better had we not found out that Donna Brazile gave Town Hall questions to Hillary Clinton in advance?

"Evidentiary value = 0" http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity ... ing-report

Well, my question presumes that the Kremlin went looking for something to hurt the Democratic candidate, found it, and passed it to Wikileaks. Of course, nobody is denying that the hacking and the information had some impact on the election, and sure illegal activity is illegal and immoral behaviour is immoral, but is it up to a foreign power to decide where the institutions and voters of another country should be focusing their attention?